7 ms·

The MAX’s safety record when it was grounded, after two years in service, roughly amounted to two catastrophic accidents for every one million flights, accordin

The MAX’s safety record when it was grounded, after two years in service, roughly amounted to two catastrophic accidents for every one million flights, according to estimates by industry officials relying on unofficial data. By contrast, the model of 737 that came before the MAX has suffered one fatal crash for every 10 million flights, according to data from Boeing. Put another way, the 737 Max has a statistic of 1 catastrophe per 500k flights, whilst the 737 was 1 per 10 million, basically 20 times as much. This is criminal behaviour, and people need to go to jail. The MAX should never be allowed to fly again.

jmpman 7y ago
I could see justification for clawback on any stock awarded or exercised for the executives responsible for 737 Max problems, but I don’t see any evidence that the 737 Max is unredeemable.
- addicted44 7y ago
  There likely appears to be only 1 way the Max can be redeemed, and that is for Boeing to accept it's a different enough plane that 737 pilots need new training for it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    Yes. Call it a new airplane, rip out the ridiculous and irresponsible hack that is the MCAS, and go from there.
- beamatronic 7y ago
  It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane
  - robmiller 7y ago
    Yup, I'm sure Amazon can get them at a discount for a Prime Air fleet.
  - joachim4 7y ago
    As a consumer there is no way I will never book a flight on a 737 Max (even if those planes are allowed to fly again), and if I have the choice between flying a Boeing and an Airbus, I will buy the flight on an Airbus. Boeing clearly needs to get back the flyers trust.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Is Airbus without problems?
- adwi 7y ago
  It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    Just like the DC-10, eh?
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      Someone just needs to find a lost Hubbard manuscript detailing how souls will be saved by flying into volcanoes on the futuristic 737-Max.
    - amyjess 7y ago
      Arrrgh. This was supposed to go under the "It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane" comment. Not sure what went wrong. Hey mods, is it possible to attach it to that one? Or if not, just kill this one and let me know so I can repost it there...
  - Reason077 7y ago
    The name is likely to be changed when it returns to flight. Some undelivered Ryanair 737-MAX have already been painted with the model number 737-8200. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
    - amyjess 7y ago
      If they do this when it returns to flight, I will no longer fly any carrier that operates 737s in any capacity. Which sadly means all my future flights will probably be on Spirit, but I'm willing to take the hit for my safety.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        That's crazy, think about what you're saying. Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash. You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same. Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size). [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
On the other hand, generalizing from two incidents to a rate isn't great statistics. The list of accidents and incidents with the previous generation [1] shows some 9 fatal problems spread over more than a decade, which is closer to a rate. But saying that the 737 Max is known to be 20 times worse when the real value might be anywhere between 2 and 200 if it had been allowed to continue flying is a little imprecise. Put people in jail for negligence, sure. But we should be criminalizing based on that negligence and not on its results. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(-600/-700/-800/-900)_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...
- ses1984 7y ago
  If it were just 2x worse wouldn't that still be pretty horrifying? Let's not split the wrong hairs.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    There are degrees of wrongness.
- tpmx 7y ago
  In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19437938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19437938 you wrote (8 months ago): The fault doesn't lie with the engineers who built the system...not to mention I would be very surprised if they were professionally certified. It lies with the managers who wrote the specification that said that for business reasons the new plane must not require any additional training or type certifications, and cut costs by implementing the required systems with a non-redundant sensor. (I agree.)
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Agree overall, one thing to note is that 737 Max already capitalizes on all errors corrected from 737. Max is 20 worse with all off the old system being already excluded from possibilities of malfunction (as long they are not affected by mcas or other new additions). > Put people in jail for negligence The higher ups new this was a tragedy waiting to happened they just hope its going to be their successors that will have to pay. Negligence is definitely too light or a term for this. This is knowingly putting people lives in jeopardy in the name of extra % in profits.
tzs 7y ago
1-(1-1/10000000)^500000 = 0.048770577854436836 In other words, if all new plane models were as safe as the 737 (1 catastrophe per 10 million flights), about 5% of those new plane models would have at least one catastrophe within the first 500k flights.
- nemonemo 7y ago
  What about two? The probability would be much lower when IID is assumed?
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Now ask what's the chance that a new model has serious problems? What if that is also 5%. Then you have a 50/50 chance the plane is bad news.
lisper 7y ago
> This is criminal behaviour, and people need to go to jail. Yes. > The MAX should never be allowed to fly again. No. Even at 20x the failure rate, flying in a Max -- even with an unmodified MCAS -- is still vastly safer than driving on a per-distance-travelled basis. Part of the problem is that commercial aviation has gotten so ridiculously safe that we've lost all perspective on risk assessment. The Max is actually fundamentally a safe plane. What made it unsafe was the totally fucked up attempt to make its flight characteristic the same as the old 737 so it and its pilots would not have to be re-certified. The right answer is to re-certify. That's expensive, but a lot cheaper than scrapping an entire fleet of brand new planes. Grounding the entire fleet forever is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  Well, given that other models exist that accomplish the same job (albeit perhaps not from Boeing), it's going to be a steep climb to get European authorities to agree to certify it, I expect. So, the correct comparison would not be to driving, but to flying in other planes with similar range that are already available. I am no expert, but I do not get the impression that it is looking good in this respect.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > it's going to be a steep climb to get European authorities to agree to certify it No doubt. > the correct comparison would not be to driving, but to flying in other planes with similar range that are already available Yes, but the correct comparison is the recertified Max, without MCAS, and with re-trained pilots. That is the alternative to scrapping the fleet.
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  > is still vastly safer than driving on a per-distance-travelled basis I did the math one time with very conservative numbers (thinking it'd be an easy win) and got shockingly close: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19983686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19983686 If you have an alternative reference or more exact numbers I'd love to see them!

jmpman 7y ago

I could see justification for clawback on any stock awarded or exercised for the executives responsible for 737 Max problems, but I don’t see any evidence that the 737 Max is unredeemable.

addicted44 7y ago
There likely appears to be only 1 way the Max can be redeemed, and that is for Boeing to accept it's a different enough plane that 737 pilots need new training for it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- caconym_ 7y ago
  Yes. Call it a new airplane, rip out the ridiculous and irresponsible hack that is the MCAS, and go from there.
beamatronic 7y ago
It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane
- robmiller 7y ago
  Yup, I'm sure Amazon can get them at a discount for a Prime Air fleet.
- joachim4 7y ago
  As a consumer there is no way I will never book a flight on a 737 Max (even if those planes are allowed to fly again), and if I have the choice between flying a Boeing and an Airbus, I will buy the flight on an Airbus. Boeing clearly needs to get back the flyers trust.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Is Airbus without problems?
adwi 7y ago
It’s irredeemable on its name alone at this point.
- amyjess 7y ago
  Just like the DC-10, eh?
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Someone just needs to find a lost Hubbard manuscript detailing how souls will be saved by flying into volcanoes on the futuristic 737-Max.
  - amyjess 7y ago
    Arrrgh. This was supposed to go under the "It’s going to make a fantastic cargo plane" comment. Not sure what went wrong. Hey mods, is it possible to attach it to that one? Or if not, just kill this one and let me know so I can repost it there...
- Reason077 7y ago
  The name is likely to be changed when it returns to flight. Some undelivered Ryanair 737-MAX have already been painted with the model number 737-8200. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
  - amyjess 7y ago
    If they do this when it returns to flight, I will no longer fly any carrier that operates 737s in any capacity. Which sadly means all my future flights will probably be on Spirit, but I'm willing to take the hit for my safety.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That's crazy, think about what you're saying. Yes, this is negligent behavior, yes, Boeing and the FAA should have their come-to-Jesus moment. But the odds of a crash on a MAX for you are one in five hundred thousand. Put another way you have a 0.0002% chance of being involved in a crash. You have an 0.01% chance of dying each year being involved in a car accident in the United States. That's 50X higher risk. [1] On a per-trip basis it's pretty much the same. Normally, of course, driving is much more dangerous than flying. On a MAX8 it's ball-park (based on an incredibly limited sample size). [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortalit...

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

On the other hand, generalizing from two incidents to a rate isn't great statistics. The list of accidents and incidents with the previous generation [1] shows some 9 fatal problems spread over more than a decade, which is closer to a rate. But saying that the 737 Max is known to be 20 times worse when the real value might be anywhere between 2 and 200 if it had been allowed to continue flying is a little imprecise. Put people in jail for negligence, sure. But we should be criminalizing based on that negligence and not on its results. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(-600/-700/-800/-900)_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...

ses1984 7y ago
If it were just 2x worse wouldn't that still be pretty horrifying? Let's not split the wrong hairs.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  There are degrees of wrongness.
tpmx 7y ago
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19437938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19437938 you wrote (8 months ago): The fault doesn't lie with the engineers who built the system...not to mention I would be very surprised if they were professionally certified. It lies with the managers who wrote the specification that said that for business reasons the new plane must not require any additional training or type certifications, and cut costs by implementing the required systems with a non-redundant sensor. (I agree.)
me_me_me 7y ago
Agree overall, one thing to note is that 737 Max already capitalizes on all errors corrected from 737. Max is 20 worse with all off the old system being already excluded from possibilities of malfunction (as long they are not affected by mcas or other new additions). > Put people in jail for negligence The higher ups new this was a tragedy waiting to happened they just hope its going to be their successors that will have to pay. Negligence is definitely too light or a term for this. This is knowingly putting people lives in jeopardy in the name of extra % in profits.

tzs 7y ago

1-(1-1/10000000)^500000 = 0.048770577854436836 In other words, if all new plane models were as safe as the 737 (1 catastrophe per 10 million flights), about 5% of those new plane models would have at least one catastrophe within the first 500k flights.

nemonemo 7y ago
What about two? The probability would be much lower when IID is assumed?
Gibbon1 7y ago
Now ask what's the chance that a new model has serious problems? What if that is also 5%. Then you have a 50/50 chance the plane is bad news.

lisper 7y ago

> This is criminal behaviour, and people need to go to jail. Yes. > The MAX should never be allowed to fly again. No. Even at 20x the failure rate, flying in a Max -- even with an unmodified MCAS -- is still vastly safer than driving on a per-distance-travelled basis. Part of the problem is that commercial aviation has gotten so ridiculously safe that we've lost all perspective on risk assessment. The Max is actually fundamentally a safe plane. What made it unsafe was the totally fucked up attempt to make its flight characteristic the same as the old 737 so it and its pilots would not have to be re-certified. The right answer is to re-certify. That's expensive, but a lot cheaper than scrapping an entire fleet of brand new planes. Grounding the entire fleet forever is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

rossdavidh 7y ago
Well, given that other models exist that accomplish the same job (albeit perhaps not from Boeing), it's going to be a steep climb to get European authorities to agree to certify it, I expect. So, the correct comparison would not be to driving, but to flying in other planes with similar range that are already available. I am no expert, but I do not get the impression that it is looking good in this respect.
- lisper 7y ago
  > it's going to be a steep climb to get European authorities to agree to certify it No doubt. > the correct comparison would not be to driving, but to flying in other planes with similar range that are already available Yes, but the correct comparison is the recertified Max, without MCAS, and with re-trained pilots. That is the alternative to scrapping the fleet.
3JPLW 7y ago
> is still vastly safer than driving on a per-distance-travelled basis I did the math one time with very conservative numbers (thinking it'd be an easy win) and got shockingly close: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19983686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19983686 If you have an alternative reference or more exact numbers I'd love to see them!